What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

I still think we almost completely agree... still ferreting out the use of Faith and Religion though...I would concede that both "bad" and "good" science are often done in a framework of apathy toward faith.Such a framework may I suppose be considered "non-religious". However, pressing for underlying presuppositions, which I do in every such conversation, yields the inevitable bedrock of a belief either in the supernatural, the possibility of supernatural, or the denial [null belief] of supernatural origins and or design. Further I would claim that the pursuant practice of science is statured upon that belief. Is my belief in this inevitability alchemy?

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Hi webolife. The first part of my previous post was addressed specifically to you, and was meant to clear up your question. Thank you for your patience in looking at it again, if you get a chance. I hope I am not in trouble and that you can overlook the alchemy remark, because it was not directed to you.

The second half of the post and the final alchemy comment about changing the unwanted and bad results of scientific theories into a "religion" --after the fact -- was meant to be addressed to scientific materialists in general. What I am attempting to establish is that when the experiments are carried out, as they were under the dialectical materialism of 20th c. collectivist governments, and under the Darwinian policy of eugenics under the 3 r d r-ich, then the empirical results must be respected.

And the empirical results of these grand social shifts, under scientific materialist theories, were absolutely evil. In fact, I think that genetic superiority or "fitness" was disproven, over and over and over again, during the American Experiment. Likewise, I think the social and soft sciences are almost entirely pseudoscience, as Popper already demonstrated would be the danger.

Again, what does a genuine scientist do under these circumstances? Does he assert that scientific materialism and science simply can't be wrong, and if they are, it is a religion? How many times does that work? Is there some point where science leads to enormous, deadly errors and abuses, and no one else is to blame but the scientists and their extremely gullible intellectual followers?

But in effect, the ideologies which were framed in scientific terms and carried out have been, almost, redacted from the scientific record. Is not the spirit and letter of empiricism to accept the results of the theories and experiments, rather than pretend like science had nothing to do with it? In fact, you are supposed to publish even negative results widely if you are a real scientist.

May I suggest that there is a very important omitted variable, or third alternative, which fully accounts for the motivation and the sometimes "dogmatic" behavior of modern intellectuals and scientists?

“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”~Homer

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

That is, it may be helpful to add a third category between "science" and "religion." Like any false dichotomy, this does not admit or even allow to be named the real cause behind the effect. In this case, it hides the motivation behind a lot of human behavior, which is the love of theory.

The evidence for the human propensity to love theory is not hard to find. Any one can observe that men love all kinds of theories. Men are dedicated to economic theories, political theories, esoteric theories, scientific theories, etc..

The love of theory can be a good thing and can give a scientist, for example, the sheer determination needed to pursue a path of discovery against all odds, or to strike on an incredibly useful invention.

The love of theory can also be deleterious. The evidence of this of course is not difficult to find either -- it is a matter of course that theorists form dominant paradigms, suppress those who do not agree, and ignore all contradictory evidence.

And worst of all for me, theorists make predictions based on their theory and then, almost always, based on what amounts to a scientific inevitability argument, demand top down alterations in society from every one else, to suit.

Why are the majority of people in this generation caught up in doing that? I suggest it is an inherent trait in the human psyche: love of theory, and trendiness.

“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”~Homer

Hmmm... I guess I take some stock in my "pet" theory, the CPFT.*Centropic Pressure Field

Do you have a pet theory, BPB?

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Hmmm... I guess I take some stock in my "pet" theory, the CPFT.*Centropic Pressure Field

As well I think you should web. From what I have recently learned on this thread about Centropic Pressure Field Theory, you are working out some very important problems dealing with the fine tuning of the physical laws. --After all, if these were not real problems, then mainstream physics would not be drawing on unlimited multi-verses, which would make the present universe and its physical properties much, much more Probable! (:

If I have understood so far, Centropy=Entropy matches observations more closely, and there may be some basic physics behind that. If I have understood. I hope I have understood. But at least I am closer to understanding what your initial questions are, and how this theory answers them. ...Right?

“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”~Homer

"Do you have a pet theory, BPB?"WAT No, of course not. (It's at least a couple dozen. )

I would say that like any one else I have mostly questions. (Many things we are thinking about can be changed into questions.) And for some of the questions, I have some neat hypotheses which might answer the questions. These are helpful also because they aid me in seeing how every one else is using evidence. Evidence might also validate another interpretation. So hypotheses are useful.

I also have some very beautiful theories, which I have worked on for a long time. They have survived a lot of tests and are supported by both plain evidence and new discoveries. Among these, there are a couple that, if I suddenly lost them, would probably render me unable to get out of bed, for at least a week. (: --I have suffered the loss of a theory before, and I still sometimes wish that it could have been true. And, for fun, I have one theory that almost never predicts what happens. But I can always figure out the reason why what should have happened did not show up in the observations!

So all of this does not contradict the theory that people are uniquely prone to love theories. All joking aside, I have seen enough of life to know that most people take many of their own explanatory theories for granted and have forgotten that they are theories, and where the theories came from. Often for a lifetime.

The initial premises of the CPFT [Centropic Pressure Field Theory] are:1. The universe is finite. "In the beginning, made..." 2. There is a single "arch"-field in which all actions and motions take place. Interactions of local fields are driven by the archfield, a unified field of pressure that manifests as gravitation, voltage, charge, mass, atomic forces, and light, all vectored toward the system centroid, or as electricians term, toward" ground".3. Light is Pressure, not waves or corpuscles, but it is quantized by action upon discrete objects/particles and their rotating fields.4. Light Pressure vectors are toward the field center [centropic] vs. emitted from there.5. Light is instant within a field, but is delayed in transmission across fields; ie. there is relay delay in such processes as absorption, induction, and reflection, refraction, but between peripheral observer/detector and field centroid, there is instantaneous action. This is justified by the observance that a field is a single entity, local fields being unified subsets of the larger universal field. A remarkable consequence of field unity follows: that supernova you are watching in a distant galaxy is happening as you see it, not millions or billions of years ago. "Let there be light... and it was there."6. Light action is initiated by centropic pressure typically vectored upon an electronic configuration about an atom, eg. on the surface of a star, eg. Sol. As the energized electron falls [entropy] to a lower energy level, the field [the entire field of that electron] collapses [contracts, decays, etc.] under the influence of the archfield; and that field collapse [in the direction of the centroid, eg. the star or Sol] is detected as pressure by the observer's retina, or whatever photosensitive device is being employed. Of course, if one is looking in the opposite or a different direction from the light source/field centroid, there is no retinal/photosensitive response, and "dark" is experienced. Likewise, an eruption of material [eg. plasma filaments into the corona from a solar flare] in the opposite direction of centropy [toward the observer] is seen as dark, a sunspot; but as the material returns toward the surface of the sun in the direction of centropy, we see that as a bright region surrounding the "spot". Because peripheral observer and centroidal "electrons" are members of field "units" the experience is instantaneous cross that field radius. Or in other words, light action is independent of distance. Some simple experiments re-enacting the interference experiments of Young can be shown to prove that light is not waves, and inferred by analysis of the optical vector diagrams, that it is not corpuscles. Once recognized to be force, it soon becomes apparent or at least reasonable that the observed action across a distance is centropic, and fundamentally instantaneous. The objection against "infinite speed" is moot, because no light waves or photon corpuscles are moving or emitted by the source centroid. Discussion of induction, absorption and reflection reserved for another post or thread.

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

[quote]The initial premises of the CPFT (Centropic Pressure Field Theory) are:1. The universe is finite. "In the beginning, made..." 2. There is a single "arch"-field in which all actions and motions take place. Interactions of local fields are driven by the archfield, a unified field of pressure that manifests as gravitation, voltage, charge, mass, atomic forces, and light, all vectored toward the system centroid, or as electricians term, toward" ground".3. Light is Pressure, not waves or corpuscles, but it is quantized by action upon discrete objects/particles and their rotating fields.[/quote]

Web, thank you for the overview of Centropic Field Theory. I have seen pieces of these proposals in your comments, and this brings them together.

If you have a finite universe, with a single arch-field in which all motions and actions take place, it seems that there would as a result be either a "push" or a "pull" keeping all things together, rather than flying apart, or dissipating because of cosmological time. And if this field is centered on a centroid, along with other centroids nested within it, then I suppose this means the centroid is radiating the field. Also, if light is pressure and not a wave, does your theory have an electromagnetic spectrum?

Very interesting! I hope you have a very very Merry Christmas. And thank you again for making this theory accessible to me. (:

“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”~Homer

The EM spectrum is a little-questioned, therefore under-explored premise in modern physics. Because of the dogma of Youngian interference, which is disprovable, the EM spectrum is simply taken as a wavish fact. It is the continuity of color that is so appealing to many. Interestingly however, from the standpoint of the pressure field:1. There is no such thing as a "continuous" spectrum, only a dense collection of overlapping discrete spectra. This is important mainly in the recognition that by definition all natural actions are quantized, not because of some statistical referent, but because there are smallest quantities in the finite universe. 2. There is no Purple -- The spectrum ends with indigo, where it then disappears into UV. 3. There is no place in the EM model for supernumerary rainbows, yet these are obvious to the casual observer of halos, rainbows, mudpuddles, and other examples of alleged interference. 4. The theta-angle taken by Young and physicists since to infer lambda wavelength is actually the vector angle of a pressure field about the CLOS [central line of sight]. The vector of pressure determines the color detected. 5. Because color is associated with geometry, ie. natural ratios within the pressure field, the repetitive aspect of supernumeraries is expected and explained as a function of fractal redundancy. This also explains the otherwise misplaced position of violet at the end of blue, where its association with red marks the repeating geometry of the "next" spectrum, rather than simply disappearing into the "invisible" range.6. While the preceding claims are of course controversial this one is not: All color, all light, is invisible, ie. 100% transparent. There is no "visible" spectrum bordered by invisible... only detectors resonant with different phases of the pressure gradient. Humans are coincidentally capable of detecting the parts of the pressure gradient we refer to as colors, while other parts remaining indetectable enable us to make clear visual distinctions between a majority of the objects in the universe. 7. Also indisputable is the fact that every "band" of the spectrum is itself an image of the light source/centroid, elicited by the force vectors of the pressure gradient about the CLOS. Imaging of course is readily modeled by use of optical ray diagrams, and not by wave models. The ordering of the pressure vector field that occurs in the production of spectra by lenses and slits [pinholes] results in defined images. This is also demonstrable in so-called "interference" set-ups, making the refractive wave model of little value to describe the color array seen. For example, look at a glowing CFL bulb through a spectroscope from a sufficient distance to see the spiral shape of the tubing. the color bars of the resulting discrete spectrum all have the exact same shape, not a diffused refractive blending expected from the slit refraction model of Young et.al. This imaging is remarkably demonstrated by the observation through any slit device of a monofilament bulb, as the spectrum is "unexplainably" divided by the shadows of the wee wires that support the filament. If the spectrum were waves, these wire support shadows should have been utterly glared out of sight by the bright "waves" of light surrounding them, yet they are still quite sharply imaged at some distance from the lamp. Try it. "Let there be light!"8. The orthogonal wave trains of electricity and magnetism modeled as the EM spectrum can be thought of as orthogonal vectors in the pressure gradient, but the CPFT regards both magnetism and electricity, and gravitation and light as manifestations of a single unified compression field, the centropic pressure field.

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

The EM spectrum is a little-questioned, therefore under-explored premise in modern physics. Because of the dogma of Youngian interference, which is disprovable, the EM spectrum is simply taken as a wavish fact. 1. There is no such thing as a "continuous" spectrum, only a dense collection of overlapping discrete spectra. This is important mainly in the recognition that by definition all natural actions are quantized, not because of some statistical referent, but because there are smallest quantities in the finite universe. 2. There is no Purple -- The spectrum ends with indigo, where it then disappears into UV. 3. There is no place in the EM model for supernumerary rainbows, yet these are obvious to the casual observer of halos, rainbows, mudpuddles, and other examples of alleged interference.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the dominant physical model! Someone always should and someone always will. It is also a bit like biting into a hot chile pepper -- not unpleasant, if done well and after long consideration and a great number of hours of work, as in your case.

I do wonder if your model is capable of creating any new antenna technology. Antenna length is in ratio to wavelengths, and work in half and quarter lengths also. I would not at all mind starting a thread on antennas, if you would like. Happy New Year (:

“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”~Homer

I've thought quite a bit about antenna technology. Although I am no engineer, the "theta" angle that infers wavelength by standard model optical formulations can simply be understood as an angle, a vectoral relationship between the observed "color," ie. frequency, of radiolight, and the central line of the signal. By CPFT the "amplitude" of radiolight is a referent to the spectral distribution of the pressure gradient about the central signal line. The antenna is resonant to the frequency of the signal combined with the pressure gradient fluctuation created by/at the sender. The only wave that occurs is in the oscilloscope graph that describes this fluctuation through time. Of course, fluctuation is a synonym for wave, but this does not require or obviate that light is by nature a wave somehow propagating itself through a vacuous or imaginary aether medium. Or in other words, the rotating central/centroidal [generally electronic] cause of the signal creates the fluctuation, not the fundamental nature of light, which is pressure upon the resonant receiver/antenna. You only see the light [or radiolight] when it is there, ie. "here" at the receiver [eg. retina], never along the way, despite the strobing trickery of femtophotography."Let there be light, and there it was."

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

By CPFT the "amplitude" of radiolight is a referent to the spectral distribution of the pressure gradient about the central signal line. The antenna is resonant to the frequency of the signal combined with the pressure gradient fluctuation created by/at the sender. The only wave that occurs is in the oscilloscope graph that describes this fluctuation through time.

Do you mean beauty is an instantaneous longitudinal force in the eye of the beholder? (:

This leads to the question: does your theory forbid the use of antennae of certain lengths for certain frequencies?

(I think this diagram is off slightly but I still like it)

(cont'd)

“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”~Homer